CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

Published

Wasn't sure the best place to put this, but here's the article:

CDC Considers Counseling Males Of All Ages On Circumcision : Shots - Health News : NPR

What do you think of this? Have you read the African studies and do you think they translate to our population? Do you think it's a good idea from a public health standpoint?

As an IBCLC I disagree with this...

Not going to debate this because I could trot out a platoon of IBCLC colleagues with a hundred years (or more) of experience who would disagree with your disagreement. And then you'd want to do the same. Let's just say your mileage may vary; my experience and knowledge is also valid.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Males have no problem masturbating no matter if they are uncircumcised or not

You're ignoring what I said. I said its easier to masturbate if you are uncircumcised because the foreskin provides a gliding effect (so no lubricant needed). You've provided no rationale against this. One of the original intentions of circumcision was to prevent masturbation if this gives you any clarity. But the real issues is not whether circumcised guys masturbate less, its that it is harder for them to do so.

but I happy to hear that you ladies are so worried about man's ability to masturbate effectively and comfortably.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not here. Nurses (male or female) ARE to be worried about the emotional, spiritual, medical, and sexual health of patients of all ages, including masturbation (the safest form of expressing sexuality!). If you peruse these boards enough you'll find the topic about hospitalized patients masturbating, and sex in nursing homes, for example.

It is also a misnomer that circumcised males need lubrication to masturbate or have sex comfortably.

The systematic literature review shows no difference in sexual function between circumcised men and uncircumcised men.

I said that masturbation is harder when you are circumcised, not impossible(especially if you have lubricant), and gave the rationale that the foreskin provides a gliding motion. If you require research, then here. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

Again, I'd like for you to provide any actual rationale as to why removing the foreskin, (which provides the gliding motion), makes 0 difference in masturbation. As well, any basic google search will give you a plethora of personal anecdotes that uncut guys masturbate easier because lube is not needed. Circumcised men have a varying amount of foreskin cut, so some circumcised men that were 'less cut' may use the remaining amount of foreskin to aid in masturbation. I also see in these stories, some circumcised men saying that it is painful to masturbate without any lubrication. The simple fact of the matter is uncircumcised men use their foreskin to masturbate. Taking this away makes it more difficult.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
*tiptoes in*

On that note about JW, could the parents be charged if they withheld a life saving blood transfusion from their child? Is that similar to the Parents that chose prayer over treatment and ended up letting the child die?

I've always wondered about the legality of that.

I've never heard of that happening. It's more likely that the hospital will sue for custodial rights to force the transfusion on the child against the parents' wishes.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in School Nursing.

Are those against circumcision for infant boys also against ear piercing for infant girls? I'm just curious.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
You're ignoring what I said. I said its easier to masturbate if you are uncircumcised because the foreskin provides a gliding effect (so no lubricant needed). So please provide rationale against this, instead of just saying "you're wrong". One of the original intentions of circumcision was to prevent masturbation if this gives you any clarity. But the real issues is not whether circumcised guys masturbate less, its that it is harder for them to do so.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not here. Nurses (male or female) ARE to be worried about the emotional, spiritual, medical, and sexual health of patients of all ages, including masturbation (the safest form of expressing sexuality!). If you peruse these boards enough you'll find the topic about hospitalized patients masturbating, and sex in nursing homes, for example.

I said that masturbation is harder when you are circumcised, not impossible(especially if you have lubricant), and gave the rationale that the foreskin provides a gliding motion. If you require research, then here. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

Again, I'd like for you to provide any actual rationale as to why removing the foreskin, (which provides the gliding motion), makes 0 difference in masturbation. As well, any basic google search will give you a plethora of personal anecdotes that uncut guys masturbate easier because lube is not needed.

Actually, I already provided a systematic review that pointed out that there was no difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised males. In using that reference you are wrong.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, because I feel that is basically a very ignorant assumption that circumcised males have more difficulty masturbating than uncircumcised males. It has also been disproven.

I provided a systematic review that is considered one of the top evidence for basing evidence on. Here is another review on the subject.

http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.lrc1.usuhs.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ Here is a meta-analysis. It also addresses your article. It showed no difference in sexual function between uncircumcised men and circumcised men.

The authors in the study you provided a link to took a validated survey tool and added their own questions to it. That is a universal violation of validity to a research study. You are supposed to only use validated tools to perform an analysis, and it takes several validation survey tool studies in order to validate tools. That is why good researchers only use validated tools and methods.

I reviewed the entire article you provided. The results came from question 6 in their survey that asks how often do you masturbate and the answers were not at all, sometimes, and frequently. That provides no way to judge anything. There is no description of what any of those terms mean or if the participants were given definitions on what those terms mean i.e. is sometimes 2x a day or 50x a week. The generally accepted way to ask someone about sex/masturbation is to state how often do you masturbate/have sex. Stating it in other ways has been shown to alter the validity of the answer.

I would suggest if you are going to try to use an research article in a discussion that you not get the article from an anti-circumcision site since it will be inherently biased to start with, and also review that article very carefully. That is one of the reasons I try to rely on systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles since taken as a whole they provide a lot more weight and all the articles in the review have usually had at least two research trained authors to review for errors and problems with validity.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

I've never heard of that happening. It's more likely that the hospital will sue for custodial rights to force the transfusion on the child against the parents' wishes.

Jehovah Witnesses and their children needing life-saving interventions that go against their religion has been tried in the courts several times, and it basically comes down to this "It is okay for an adult to martyr themselves in the name of their religion, but not their children". It is perfectly acceptable in a life-threatening emergency for healthcare providers to do what they need to do to save a child's life even if it is against their parents religious beliefs.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Jehovah Witnesses and their children needing life-saving interventions that go against their religion has been tried in the courts several times, and it basically comes down to this "It is okay for an adult to martyr themselves in the name of their religion, but not their children". It is perfectly acceptable in a life-threatening emergency for healthcare providers to do what they need to do to save a child's life even if it is against their parents religious beliefs.

I'm a JW, so I already understand why this happens.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Actually, I already provided a systematic review that pointed out that there was no difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised males. In using that reference you are wrong.
Your link brings up a warning on my firefox that it is an untrusted site. Since I can't read that, I'll just respond to the rest. If by sexual function you mean desire, ability to have an erection, and ability to ejaculate, then we're talking about different things. All I am saying is that by circumcising, you are removing a masturbatory aid. That's it.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, because I feel that is basically a very ignorant assumption that circumcised males have more difficulty masturbating than uncircumcised males. It has also been disproven.
Sigh... I gave you actual rationale which is true, that uncircumcised males do use their foreskins to masturbate. Circumcised men do not have this option so many need lubrication, which is true.

The question a different poster asked, that I was answering, was asking what are the negative effects to a child being circumcised besides the procedure. That's all. I really don't care about the minutia of the other differences. If the study I listed has issues then feel free to disregard. What I'm saying is information any guy can tell you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Are those against circumcision for infant boys also against ear piercing for infant girls? I'm just curious.

I'd chime in and say no, and they are not comparable because one is permanent and the other is not.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CEN, CFRN, PHRN, RCIS, EMT-P.

A hospital was cited because they were caught selling male foreskin on the black market. The foreskin was used to make wallets. These wallets were very expensive because they had a feature no other leather wallet has. The foreskin wallets would turn to full suitcases when rubbed repeatedly :D

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
Your link brings up a warning on my firefox that it is an untrusted site. Since I can't read that, I'll just respond to the rest. If by sexual function you mean desire, ability to have an erection, and ability to ejaculate, then we're talking about different things. All I am saying is that by circumcising, you are removing a masturbatory aid. That's it.

Sigh... I gave you actual rationale which is true, that uncircumcised males do use their foreskins to masturbate. Circumcised men do not have this option so many need lubrication, which is true.

The question a different poster asked, that I was answering, was asking what are the negative effects to a child being circumcised besides the procedure. That's all. I really don't care about the minutia of the other differences. If the study I listed has issues then feel free to disregard. What I'm saying is information any guy can tell you.

The link is from a pubmed site linked to Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland. It is my university library site. It allows me to access the full articles not just the abstracts, which can sometimes be misleading.

What you are stating is anecdotal evidence that is not backed up by research. The research article you posted is from a biased website, and has glaring method errors. The articles I posted address masturbation and sexual function, which in general are commonly considered as part of the total of sexual function.

What I keep providing on this thread is actual high quality research that no one has disproven. What you and some others keep trying to pass off as evidence is theoretical possibilities and anecdotal evidence based on 1 or 2 people's accounts. Your "evidence" isn't even presented in case-study presentation, which is generally considered the lowest level of evidence.

In Summary: It doesn't matter per systematic literature review and meta-analysis if a male is circumcised or not circumcised there is no statistical difference in sexual function/masturbation.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatrics, High-Risk L&D, Antepartum, L.
Are those against circumcision for infant boys also against ear piercing for infant girls? I'm just curious.

I am. I am an equal opportunity believer in the rights of babies.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion